On 11-11-30 03:08 AM, Marijn Haverbeke wrote:
https://github.com/graydon/rust/wiki/Interface-and-Implementation-Proposal
Looks good to me. At least the first chunk. Gets a bit more debatable in
the "Extensions" part, but we can cross those bridges later.
Concerning operator overloading (as I gather there are >1 fans of it here):
I often mentally differentiate these operators:
+ - * / ^ % < <= == => > ! || && []
From these operators:
. () ~ @ # &(unary) *(unary)
In the sense that the former group are "more ALU-like" and the latter
group are "more load/store/jump-like". Values vs. memory-and-control.
Do you feel (straw-vote) like you'd be sufficiently happy to be able to
override the former group but not the latter? Languages vary on how far
down the rabbit hole of operator overloading they permit, and I wonder
where each proponent of the concept draws the line. The former group is
enough to implement most intuitively-arithmetic-ish types, which seems
to be the big use-case.
(Also: please say you've no interest in permitting user-defined
operator-symbols with their own associativity and precedence. Right?)
-Graydon
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
